SB 1070: Victims, Witnesses Can Be Questioned About Immigration Status Under Phoenix PD's Post-1070 Operations Order

Categories: SB 1070 Redux
PPDlogo.jpg
Victims and witnesses could be questioned about their immigration status under the new policy

The Phoenix human rights group Puente is planning a press conference and rally for Friday, March 9, to protest the Phoenix Police Department's current operations order on immigration enforcement, which allows crime victims and witnesses to be questioned about their immigration status.

The operations order was last revised in October of 2010 to come into compliance with the parts of Arizona's immigration law Senate Bill 1070 that were not enjoined by a federal judge in July of that year. 

But some local immigration activists complain that they were not advised of the changes, which give wide discretion to officers in deciding when and if to contact U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Prior to parts of 1070 going into effect, department policy required asking all arrestees about their immigration status, but that same policy prohibited officers from making immigration inquiries of victims and witnesses. It also required cops to check with a supervisor before contacting ICE. 

The new Operations Order 4.48 mirrors the unenjoined parts of 1070, stating that the policy "will not limit the enforcement of federal laws to less than the full extent permitted by the federal law." 

Officers are advised to "exercise discretion" during consensual contacts with victims and witnesses, but they are not prohibited from asking questions about the immigration status of those persons.

And instead of a requirement to contact a supervisor before calling ICE, officers are simply encouraged to contact supervisors "when necessary."

Phoenix Police spokesman Tommy Thompson explained that the department had no choice but to alter the policy, particularly since one section of 1070 not blocked by the federal court was a private right of action allowing any legal resident of Arizona to sue any law enforcement agency that "limits or restricts" the local enforcement of federal immigration law. 

An agency found to be in violation by a court could be fined up to $5,000 a day, a penalty the department cannot ignore, even with the attendant loss of some supervisory power over its employees.

"This was one of our concerns at the time," Thompson said. "That this law would supersede our policies."

My Voice Nation Help
13 comments
Anon
Anon

Mr. Lemons, Great investigative journalism.

Rob
Rob

THOSE FILTHY PIG BASTARDS! I HATE THEM.

BorderSam
BorderSam

Typical rant from leftist crybabies. Bottom line these people shouldn't be here, anchor babies, victims, witnesses, criminals, all of them need to go the hell back to Mexico. When cops come across them, they need to be hauled off to the border. Then they can get in line behind the people who want to come here legally.

LD19 Resident
LD19 Resident

Um, you might want to read the 14th Amendment, Sam.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided this issue. In 1898. It's called Wong Kim Ark vs. United States. Read it.

BTW, any person on American soil is entitled to the rights enshrined within the Constitution, whether or not your sorry ass likes it. 

Hrobster
Hrobster

Any person? Spies from China? Violent drug dealers from Mexico hiding in some quite suburb where innocent Americans are just trying to raise their kids? No wonder this country is up the creek without a paddle. With citizens like you who needs enemies.

ExpertShot
ExpertShot

 Typical anti-constitutional rant from a traitor to our Republic.  "Anchor babies"?  What the heck is that?   - Oh, you mean U.S. Citizens or people born here in this country of parents who are in an undocumented immigration status.

 Yeah, BorderSam, depriving a U.S. Citizen of their rights is an unconstitutional act - and you advocate it.  That makes you a traitor to this Republic and you should be ashamed. 

I agree that people who are not U.S. Citizens should be made to properly register with the immigration authorities, but to call them criminals when they have committed no crime is stupid.  A civil violation of our immigration statutes is NOT a criminal violation. 

BTW - Why aren't you crowing about the lack of prosecution of Matt Tolhman. 

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.c...

Hrobster
Hrobster

That's a lie Rob. Illegal aliens have whole networks where fake and stolen I.D.'s are sold.In Lost Angeles one place it's done is MacArthur Park. But the Los Angeles Police Department, being as corrupt as it is, doesn't care.

Bobby
Bobby

Correct. The government is engaged in fraud because it will not enforce immigration law. The laws are already on the books. SB1070, is nothing more than existing U.S. immigration law, not what the left is trying to make it. Having said this, we cannot deport kids who grew up here and who in many cases are as American as you or I. It's immoral.

Rob
Rob

 But Zoo's cool with the white, US Citizen meth freaks that steal the ID's and sell them to the illegal immigrants.

And with the US citizens who commit the bulk of ID fraud when they clean out people's bank accounts, ruin their credit, file millions of $'s worth of fake tax returns, etc,

Racist piece of shit.

Leonar Clark
Leonar Clark

Zooed, your going after natural born citizens (children) is disgusting ! Slyvester H. Herrera who won the medal of honor and was brought to Arizona as a child has his name on the very front of the monument in front of the Arizona state capitol ! Stop going after children and pick on someone your own size !
Leonard Clark
native of Arizona
native of Phoenix

zooed
zooed

"...A civil violation of our immigration statutes is NOT a criminal violation..."

Within days after border hopping, they acquire stolen Social Security numbers and perpetrate I.D. fraud to gain employment.  That IS a criminal offense.  

anchor baby:  "A child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family."
-American Heritage Dictionary 

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...